Macklemore and Ryan Lewis’ “Same Love”

Ben Haggerty, also known by his stage name of Macklemore, has teamed up with producer Ryan Lewis to create a new hit song titled “Same Love.” The official video that accompanies the song has garnered over 67 million views on YouTube, and the song is one of the most popular on the radio. The main point of the song is that homosexuality is the “same” kind of love as heterosexuality, and people need to quit being homophobes and embrace the homosexual lifestyle, because “God loves all his children” (a quote from the song).

At Apologetics Press, we rarely write about one song. Truth be told, there are thousands of songs out there extolling sinful lifestyles such as drunkenness, drug abuse, fornication, and physical abuse, to mention just a few. But this particular song provides an excellent outline of the standard arguments in favor of homosexuality. By analyzing the lyrics of this song, we can see what society is being told about homosexuality, and contrast that with the truth.

We Are Told Homosexuality Is A Natural Trait People Cannot Change

The primary point of the song is that homosexuality is something with which a person comes into the world. The “Hook” of the song that is repeated by singer Mary Lambert, states: “And I can’t change, even if I tried, even if I wanted to.” Haggerty (or Macklemore) says in the song that “the right-wing conservatives think it’s a decision, and you can be cured with some treatment and religion. Man-made, rewiring of a pre-disposition, playing God.” This idea, that homosexuality is something that a person cannot change, is probably the most often used argument to support the lifestyle. The problem with the argument is that it is completely false. There is nothing either scientifically or psychologically that proves homosexuality to be a “natural” characteristic that a person cannot change. People can choose to become homosexuals just as sure as they can choose to stop being homosexuals. Several obvious lines of reasoning show this to be the case.

It is Not Genetic

Homosexuality is not genetic. Scientific research has shown this to be the case. There is no “gay” gene. In fact, genetically identical twins often choose different sexual lifestyles. If homosexuality were genetic, identical twins would always have been either both homosexuals or both heterosexuals (see Miller, 2004). Furthermore, if homosexuality were genetic, natural selection would have eliminated it from the human genome, since it is a lifestyle that cannot naturally lead to procreation. [NOTE: We are not endorsing evolution. Rather, natural selection as understood as a mechanism that eliminates harmful genetic traits fits the creation model perfectly.]

Homosexuals Can Change

The song repeats over and over “I can’t change,” but that simply is not what we see in the real world. In order to disprove this statement, all we would need to do is find a person who was a homosexual and changed to a heterosexual lifestyle. In truth, thousands of people have “changed” their sexual lifestyle and left homosexuality, while thousands more have changed theirs and become homosexuals. Many in the homosexual community would say that those who have changed and are no longer homosexuals were never really homosexuals. Instead, they just thought they were, or they just pretended to be. Yet, when you ask former homosexuals about their past lifestyle, they describe their feelings and behaviors in the exact same way as practicing homosexuals. Their genetic make-up did not change. So, what did change? Their mindset and their behaviors. Similarly, if you were to analyze people who were practicing heterosexuals who changed to become homosexuals, you would not find that they somehow acquired a new biological trait. They simply chose to become homosexuals.

Another obvious way to see that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle is to notice that the more a society approves of and condones homosexuality, the more people in that society choose to be homosexuals. Homosexuality is not a new idea. The ancient Greeks, and a host of other societies, regularly practiced it. When it becomes popular, more people join in. That certainly cannot be because the “gene” is spreading because homosexual “couples” cannot procreate.

What Happens When The Argument is Used To Support Other Lifestyles?

Those of us who oppose homosexuality are told that homosexuals cannot change. When we ask for solid evidence to prove this, we are not given any. Instead, we are told that, “We don’t know how it feels,” or “Many homosexuals wish they could change, and have tried, but they can’t.” We are told that if we could just experience the feelings that homosexuals have, we would then know they are authentic and unchangeable. In essence, we are told to take their word for it. The problem arises when we apply that approach to other sexual lifestyles. For instance, is it not the case that a man who is attracted to several women at once could contend that he would like to change, but he cannot, so he should be permitted to marry all of them at once? What about the man who says that he is attracted to ten year old boys? He claims that he has tried to get rid of his attraction, he has fought it, but there is no way to stop. If he finds a consenting child, should his “natural” practice be condoned by our society? Or what about the woman who is sexually attracted to horses and claims that if others “truly understood” her love for them, they would approve of her sexual encounters?

Of course, when comparisons between homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia, or bestiality are made the homosexual community objects and demands that homosexuality is different from those other lifestyles. But the question remains, how is it different? There is the same genetic evidence for homosexuality as there is for pedophilia: none. The pedophile claims to have been born with his feelings. Many pedophiles claim to express a desire to change, but insist they cannot. In truth, homosexuality is no more or less “natural” or “unchangeable” than bestiality or pedophilia. If the homosexual insists that sexual “love” between consenting adults is different than sexual “love” between a woman and child, or a man and a dog, the pedophile or person who practices bestiality could simply respond that we are “all God’s children,” and to condemn their sexual orientation is bigotry and hate.

A 3,500 Year Old Book

In Haggerty’s song, he says the fact that “God loves all his children is somehow forgotten, but we paraphrase a book written thirty-five hundred years ago.” The implication is that somehow we have misunderstood the Bible. Supposedly, the parts about God loving his children show that any condemnation of homosexuality either must be a misunderstanding on someone’s part, or just part of an old book that should not be governing the lives and consciences of modern men and women. Haggerty’s problem here, as with other pro-homosexual resources, is that “acceptance” and “love” are not the same thing. Does God love all people? Certainly. Does he love people who steal? Yes. Does He love murderers? Yes. Does he love pedophiles? Yes. Does He love those who practice bestiality or necrophilia? Yes. Does He love homosexuals? Absolutely (read John 3:16). But does He accept those sinful lifestyles? No, He does not. In fact, He commands all those who are practicing such sins to repent or they will perish eternally (Luke 13:3; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). God loves His children, but He does not accept sinful lifestyles that humans claim they cannot change, when God knows that they can.

Furthermore, just because the Bible is a 3,500 year old book, that fact does not make it less of a legitimate moral standard than if it were written last year. God’s will for human kind was divinely instituted at the dawn of human history when He created humans and formed one man and one woman to be together in a sexual, marriage union for life. That divine plan was stated at the beginning of time, written down by Moses in about 1,500 B.C. and reiterated by Jesus Christ about 2,000 years ago (see Genesis 1:27, 2:21; Matthew 19:1-9). If there really is a God who Created the world and inspired a book, wouldn’t we expect His will to have been stated clearly for thousands of years? Macklemore’s suggestion that the antiquity of the Bible makes its message outdated cannot be defended. Would he argue that if his song somehow lasts 3,500 years, its message will be outdated due to the time that has elapsed?

Conclusion

Haggerty concludes his song by saying, “Whatever god you believe in, we come from the same one. Strip away the fear, underneath, it’s all the same love.” The fact is, however, it is not “all the same love.” God created humans, and only He knows what sexual lifestyle fits with His design. In the beginning, He created one man to be with one woman for life. Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, stressed that one man with one woman is the only acceptable relationship in which sexual activity is God-ordained and acceptable. That means that pedophilia is not the “same love” as that between one man and one woman. Bestiality is not the “same love” as between one man and one woman. Polygamy is not the “same love” as the love between one man and one woman. And homosexuality is not, and never will be, the same love as the love God designed and approved between one man and one woman.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "America's Culture War" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.